Upside Down

$ \def \SP {\quad ; \quad} $ The following diagram by Rinus Kiel may be regarded as a lucid pictural summary of Barry Setterfield's theory, in a nutshell:

Also note that the effects, thought as being caused by the ZPE, may be regarded as a rather accurate implementation of the Creationist Wish List. Does it mean that they are simply a product of wishful thinking? Not necessarily so, as has been demonstrated:

Demonstration has not been accomplished for Increasing Planck's constant. On the other hand, Increasing radiation energy trivially follows from Decreasing redshift: higher radiation frequencies $\nu$ correspond with higher $E$, according to $E=h\nu$, with Planck's constant not varying. At last, Decreasing gigantism is present in Setterfield's work, but not in the diagram by Rinus Kiel $\large (^+)$.

However, according to our own highly speculative theory, the Zero Point Energy is not causing any of the phenomena, such as those depicted in the above diagram. It rather should be the other way around. According to us, cause and effect have been mixed up with Cosmology and the ZPE. Increasing particle mass should be on top as the cause; increasing strength of ZPE - if it real - should be at the bottom as one of the effects. And the Planck constant is assumed to be an absolute constant, as there is only one hypothesis instead of several ones, namely the increasing particle mass. It is the minimalist position, as it is called by Setterfield. The resemblance with the original diagram by Rinus Kiel is striking, while I have done not any attempt to impose wishful thinking upon my little theory (at least I hope so).

As has been said, essentially the only difference between the two diagrams is the exchange of cause and effect: (Increasing strength of ZPF) $\color{red}{\Longleftrightarrow}$ (Increasing particle mass).
This could be marked in some circles as a quite satisfactory achievement. It must be noticed, however, that I've been talking about a ZPE and not about a ZPF all the time. The reason for this being that the existence of a real Zero Point Energy has been verified experimentally for fields with a material substrate; for example vibrating molecules in a solid do indeed have a real ZPE. But the existence of a Zero Point Energy for the vacuum - Zero Point Field - IMHO remains questionable. Hence the question marks ($\color{red}{??}$) in the bottom diagram.

It should be emphasized that Setterfield's mantra "Letting Data Lead to Theory" is not in any way invalidated by turning (t)his theory - in fact: any theory - upside down. In particular it has no effect, at all, on the data themselves! So what's the big deal? If one has to choose between a little, minimalist theory that is at least mathematically correct? Or an overly complicated, multi-layer, unmanageable theory that has turned out to be not even wrong?

(+) Rinus may be regarded as my cosmic twin brother. Despite our differences, we had many things in common.